this post was submitted on 14 Oct 2024

965 points (99.7% liked)

Technology

technology@lemmy.world

87,190 readers

15,612 active

4,244 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related news or articles.
Be excellent to each other!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 3 years ago

moderators

L3s@lemmy.world

enu@lemmy.world

technopagan@lemmy.world

L4s@lemmy.world

L3s@hackingne.ws

The Wayback Machine is back as a read-only service after cyberattacks (www.theverge.com)

submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by misk@sopuli.xyz to c/technology@lemmy.world

57 comments fedilink hide all child comments

edit: adjusted title slightly

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 60 points 2 years ago (3 children)

I don't agree. Free linking has always been a vitally important part of the open internet. The principle that if I make something available on a specific URL, others can access it, and I don't get to charge others for linking to a public URL is one of the core concepts of the internet itself.

parent

hideshow 6 child comments

[–] AlligatorBlizzard@sh.itjust.works 152 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Google killed off their own cached pages last month and they're now using IA as a replacement. Free linking is definitely important, but this is Google we're talking about, and them using IA to save money - this feels a lot more exploitative if Google isn't funding them in some way.

parent

hideshow 4 child comments

[–] Crackhappy@lemmy.world 75 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I think you're both right. Anyone should be able to link to an IA page, but Google basically was doing the same thing as IA with their cached pages. Now they've gotten rid of that service and are simply relying on IA to take all of the load that they had. I think they should help fund IA to compensate for the extra load.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I agree they should. But I also agree they shouldn't be required to. And if they don't, that we should just live with it as the lesser of two evils.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] RyeBread@feddit.org 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

I would argue regulation should come with (and typically be proportional to) scale. Google as an organization operates at an enormous scale. The scale of the amount links replaced with IA links will be large. The scale in amount in operational costs transferred to another organization is obviously worth it to Google. The sheer scale of everything and everyone involved should require Google to pay Internet Archive. In a decent world that is...

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] beejjorgensen@lemmy.sdf.org 1 point 2 years ago

I don't entirely disagree, but I think defining much of that in effective legal terms is going to be virtually impossible. And I'm super-wary of anything that says someone can't link to something.

parent

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 2 points 2 years ago

I had not realized that. They should absolutely be allowed to do it, but it's super shitty of them to basically offload that cost onto IA. IA of course would be well within their rights to try and monetize it. Look at incoming traffic that deep links a cached page and has a Google.com referrer, and throw a splash page or top banner asking for donation.

parent

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

There's a difference between your average Joe linking something and a massive tech company linking something. The first should always be allowed, the second should have an expectation of some form of compensation. That's why there are differences in licensing terms for lots of services, if you're using something commercially, you pay a different rate than if you're using something privately.

That said, this is on IA to enforce, and I believe they should.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Strong disagree. If I make a website people like, and Google links to it, should Google have to pay me? If so, Google basically can't exist. The record keeping of tracking every single little website that they owe money to or have to negotiate deals with would be untenable. And what happens if a large tech journal like CNET or ZDNet Links to the website of a company they are writing an article about? Do they have to pay for that? Is the payment assumed by publicity? Is it different if they link to a deep page versus the front page?

What you are talking opens up a gigantic can of worms that there is no easy solution to, if there is any solution at all.

I will absolutely give you that what Google is doing is shitty. If Google is basically outsourcing their cache to IA, they should be paying IA for the additional traffic and server load. But I think that 'should' falls in line with being a good internet citizen treating a non-profit fairly, not part of any actual requirement.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

What you are talking opens up a gigantic can of worms that there is no easy solution to, if there is any solution at all.

It might if I was suggesting any kind of legislative solution here. I'm not. I'm merely saying that IA should be more selective about how it can be accessed.

For example, if a journalist is doing a piece about how websites secretly change content, I think it's entirely reasonable for them to pay for accessing IA for the purposes of that article, because it's directly related to a commercial endeavor. However, I don't expect random internet users to pay for access to that same information, because it's not related to a commercial endeavor.

In general, you should pay for content that you're going to use commercially.

If Google is basically outsourcing their cache to IA, they should be paying IA for the additional traffic and server load.

And that's precisely what I'm saying. I'm also taking it a step further and suggesting that IA should be on top of it so companies like Google (who are profiting from their service) pay, while regular internet users don't.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] ChairmanMeow@programming.dev 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

In general, you should pay for content that you're going to use commercially

Sure, but merely linking to a page isn't reusing the content. If said content was being embedded, rehashed or otherwise shown then a compensation would be fair. But merely linking to a page should absolutely be free. That's a massively important cornerstone of the internet that shouldn't be compromised on.

Linking directs traffic which can be monetized by the website itself, it shouldn't require additional fees on top.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago

There's a difference between primary content like a website, and secondary content like a cache of a page. I think services doing the latter should be a bit more aggressive about charging fees for commercial entities linking to them, since they're providing a service separate from the primary source.

parent

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

This view is a bit naive in that it doesn't take into account a lot of variables. It favors established large actors in their ability to extract and accumulate ever more value from the ones they link.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

And, with respect, this view is more naive (IMHO) because it's focused by size of company, and you can't do that. You can't have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

So if Google has to pay to link to IA, then so does DuckDuckGo and any other small upstart search engine that might want to make a 'wayback machine this site!' button.

Google unquestionably gets value from the sites they link to. But if that value must be paid, then every other search engine has to pay it also, including little ones like DDG. That basically kills search engines as a concept, because they simply can't work on that model.

Thus I think your view is more naive, because you're just trying to stick it to Google rather than considering the full range of effects your policy would have.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

You can't have one set of laws for small companies and another set of laws for large companies.

This is false. We can, and we do. Antitrust laws are one example off the top of my head. There are probably others. The assumption that every actor has to pay the same price is false as well. There are countless examples for this.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] SirEDCaLot@lemmy.today 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Antitrust laws prevent companies from acting in a way to squeeze off competition. Small companies are also prevented from squeezing off competition. Anticompetitive practices are illegal regardless of your size.

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago

That's funny but I'm not gonna argue on it. It's easier to give another example. If you want to get informed try finding laws that depend on firm size and be convinced if you do.

parent